The Firing Pin (Gun thread)

this is a discussion within the Everything Else Community Forum; Would anyone actually trust something like that?
I am no expert on firearms but no way would i be trusting a chip to have the gun fire.Surely you just want to flick the safety off and be able to fire?
...

I am no expert on firearms but no way would i be trusting a chip to have the gun fire.Surely you just want to flick the safety off and be able to fire?

I saw a piece on the BBC regarding the US Army testing new smart rifles.
I states that the target has to be tagged through the scope and if not lined up will not fire. Again surely you want this to be a soldiers choice to fire not a electronic chip.There are going to be cases of having to just pin down and suppress insurgents/enemy troops without actually being able to line up the shot to pick a specific target.

US Army tests TrackingPoint smart-rifle scopes
TrackingPoint weapon
TrackingPoint weapons are equipped with a special scope featuring a head-up display
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

World's first 3D-printer gun fired
Self-steering bullet researched
Laser gun fired from US Navy ship
The US Army is testing a "smart rifle" technology designed to improve the accuracy of shots.

A spokeswoman confirmed reports that its equipment testing specialists had acquired six TrackingPoint rifles as part of efforts to identify state-of-the-art kit.

The tech allows the user to place a virtual tag on a target seen through the weapon's scope.

If the trigger is pressed, it fires only if the gun is correctly lined up.

This prevents errors such as trigger jerk, range miscalculation and accidental firing from being a problem.

In addition, a Linux-based computer built into the scope can compensate for 16 calculated variables, including temperature, the expected spin drift of the bullet and the direction the wind is blowing.

Scope view
A TrackingPoint weapon is supposed to refuse to fire until a red dot is lined up with a tagged target
"I can only train a soldier so much," Lt Col Shawn Lucas, of the army's Program Executive Office (PEO) soldier division, told Army Times.

"However, for a relatively small investment, I can make a significant increase in probability of hit and overall effectiveness by making an investment in advanced fire control."

But one independent observer said the technology would not turn every soldier into a sniper.

"This isn't a revolutionary technology, but essentially laser-designation 'tagging' adapted from common use in more complex weapons systems for use on small arms," said Peter Quentin, of the defence-focused Rusi think tank.

"It is not going to create 'super-snipers' because it still cannot do what is the truly smart aspect of their skills - a full assessment of weather and other conditions that will affect the flight of the bullet, and [which] therefore requires considerable calculation to determine adjustments to the aim.

"But while this does not deepen capabilities, it has the potential to broaden them, improving the accuracy of larger numbers of less specialist personnel by enabling the 'retagging' of a target rather than retaking of a shot."

Precision tactics
According to the Austin, Texas-based company TrackingPoint, the addition of its scope to a rifle delivers five times the first-shot success rate of traditional systems at distances of up to 1,200 yards (1.1km).

TrackingPoint gun
The scopes use a laser range finder to lock onto a moving target
An associated app can also stream live video from the scope's head-up display to a smartphone or tablet - allowing the shooter's tags to be monitored.

Civilian versions of its shooting systems cost between $10,000 and $27,000 (£6,030 to £16,280), depending on the weapon used.

"We believe this technology will revolutionise the effectiveness of our fighting forces as they perform their duty for our country," chief executive John Lupher told the BBC.

The company is not the only one trying to make gunfire more accurate.

The Pentagon's Darpa research unit is developing a separate sniper scope called the One Shot XG that measures crosswinds gusting up to 54km/h (33.6mph), the range to the target and a resulting confidence score.

One Shot XG
Darpa is developing its own "smart" sniper scope to improve the accuracy of shots
Lockheed Martin is taking a different approach by developing self-guiding bullets that can steer themselves towards a target by using tiny fins to adjust their course mid-air in order to hit laser-designated targets at distances of more than a mile.

Mr Quentin suggested the demand for such technologies was growing because of a tactical shift away from the use of suppression fire, used to fix an enemy in one position, towards a precision model.

"Precision is required when operating amongst populations, such as Afghanistan, where targets must be positively identified and civilian casualties avoided at all costs," he said.

"In such environments first-time hits and avoidance of collateral damage are paramount - it is not just about what you hit, but who you miss.

"Such systems, therefore, offer the potential to broaden the capability of forces to deliver accurate fire on positively identified targets, but ultimately they can only be as smart as the personnel that operate them."

I am no expert on firearms but no way would i be trusting a chip to have the gun fire.Surely you just want to flick the safety off and be able to fire?

Ill comment on the pistol, and the possible uses of the kit.

First it's a .22 which is useless for the most part. Second, the total kit is $1800 no market for a .22 at that price.

Now.... While I completely agree that I would never trust a weapon with out a manual safety (this and Glock included). This does have some great protective value and I would highly recommend it for anyone that is a firearm novice or not comfortable squeezing the trigger in self defense.

What it does Lee is ensure that if my wife pulls the pistol and for one reason or another her attacker gets the pistol, it can't be used against her.

It also provides a level of safety for idiots that have children but refuse to secure their weapons. No watch... No fire... Would have saved the lives of a lot of children.

Like I said earlier ....$1800? A good .22LR pistol is between $300-500.

"If" there is a good one. .22 ammunition is rimfire, very dirty, unreliable, and QA is inconsistent because it is so cheap. My wife has a .22 pistol but it's only for the range and practicing trigger squeeze, familiarization, etc...

Thanks for answering.
For people with kids I can get it as you point out. But anyone with a weapon and kids should be teaching there kids about guns early imo.
Obviously we have no experience of firearms over here but I if I had kids and firearms surly you make them familiar with them early so they don't want to be trying to get them when you are out.

Thanks for answering.
For people with kids I can get it as you point out. But anyone with a weapon and kids should be teaching there kids about guns early imo.
Obviously we have no experience of firearms over here but I if I had kids and firearms surly you make them familiar with them early so they don't want to be trying to get them when you are out.

My girls are 8-5, and don't try to touch them when they see me with them. Soon I'll start educating them with a BB gun, but they have no business around my firearms yet.

That said it's "nearly" impossible for anyone other than my wife or I to get to mine with out a tow truck and a blow torch..... after they get past me.

Kids..... They will always be kids and are prone to bouts of thoughtless curiosity regardless of what you teach them. I am, by nature, an overly cautious person. My girls hand me the napkin roll at a restaurant to remove the knife. My knife block stays on top of my refrigerator to keep accidents from happening.

First it's a .22 which is useless for the most part. Second, the total kit is $1800 no market for a .22 at that price.

Now.... While I completely agree that I would never trust a weapon with out a manual safety (this and Glock included). This does have some great protective value and I would highly recommend it for anyone that is a firearm novice or not comfortable squeezing the trigger in self defense.

What it does Lee is ensure that if my wife pulls the pistol and for one reason or another her attacker gets the pistol, it can't be used against her.

It also provides a level of safety for idiots that have children but refuse to secure their weapons. No watch... No fire... Would have saved the lives of a lot of children.

Like I said earlier ....$1800? A good .22LR pistol is between $300-500.

"If" there is a good one. .22 ammunition is rimfire, very dirty, unreliable, and QA is inconsistent because it is so cheap. My wife has a .22 pistol but it's only for the range and practicing trigger squeeze, familiarization, etc...

See this part?
"Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., unveiled a gun control bill last month requiring all new guns be "personalized" with special features, such as fingerprint-reading technology, so they can only be fired by their owners or other authorized users."

I'm cool with that. But I am the ONLY person with access to that info and those features. There will be no database with my prints (well no more than there already are TWIC, FBI, ARMY) and if I sell it the new owner can reprogram it to his prints.

Hell if it were reliable, everything would stay cocked and locked for self defense out in the open.

Gun owners have no issues with true safety. Magazine size, color, nearly all of California's laws.... Do not make a safer weapon or gun owner, they make owning guns by law abiding citizens cumbersome, while doing nothing to address criminals other than supplying Mexican drug cartels so they can trace where guns go.